denver public librarian and i said what are the issues you're facing here at the denver public library? and i thought she would say something like, you know, cyber security or access to books. she said, you know, we have people overdosing in the library every day. and we need to get our librarians the locks on so they can give it to people who have overdosed, at the denver public library. >> and senator john mccain at the confirmation hearing of deputy defense secretary nominee patrick man han. >> we now have an executive from one of the five major corporations that has corralled 90% of our defense budgets and on one of the major issues that this committee has had hearings about, has had markups about, has had reported out our bill and you want to find out more information. not a good beginning. not a good beginning.

do not do that again, mr. shanahan, or i will not take your name up for a vote before this committee. >> c-span programs are available at c-span.org, right on our home page or by searching the video library. and now energy secretary rick perry on president trump's proposed 2018 budget for the energy department from the senate energy and natural resources committee. this is about an hour 40 minutes. good morning everyone. the committee will come to order. i apologize for the delayed start, but hopefully we will have an opportunity to hear from the secretary and learn of the president's views for the department of energy. secretary perry, i want to welcome you to your first

hearing following your bipartisan confirmation here in the senate. while it took us a little bit longer than we'd hoped to get you in this role, we're glad to have you at the helm. we look forward to helping you get a full compliment of folks there at the department as well. the budget request for the department of energy takes a different approach this year than we've seen in the recent past. the president has made a concerted effort to increase funding for the national nuclear security administration to focus on our nuclear weapons program. this is a portion of the department that falls outside the scope of our committee here. the administration has also requested robust funding for the cleanup of nuclear waste left behind by our country's cold war legacy. to offset those funding increases, the budget request proposed deep cuts to research and development for energy and science. it also proposes to phase out innovative programs such as arpe that have demonstrated success.

i understand what drove this proposal, but i'm also concerned by certain parts of it. the united states is the world leader in science and energy. we like it that way. we want to keep it that way. and at the core of that excellence is the work done at our national labs and universities by the men and women who dedicate their careers to furthering science. members on both sides of this committee want to maintain and strengthen that leadership. so we need to be careful that we don't get in the way of the good work or the proper role of the private sector. but keeping that in mind, many of us have found good bipartisan opportunities where it makes sense to increase funding for r & d. i appreciate the need to derive savings and balance our budget, but that cannot come at the expense of our efforts on energy innovation. good science should not sit on a shelf, and the department should continue to push the limits of science in order to ensure that the next generation of energy technologies is developed here in this country.

although i do not support all the proposals in this budget request, i believe we do have some areas of agreement here. i also believe we can undertake reforms at the department to help save taxpayer dollars. our work on the loan programs is a good example i think of how that can work. my goal for the department of energy is to drive down the costs of emerging precommercial technologies to make energy more affordable, reliable, clean, diverse and secure. take you back to energy 2020, those principles haven't changed. and it's particularly important for alaska where energy costs are orders of magnitude above those in the lower 48. so secretary perry, again, thank you for being here this morning. i hope to be able to host you up in the state soon. i know that you've made similar commitments to colleagues in the congress here. look forward to hearing your priorities outlined before the committee this morning. and i turn to our ranking member

senator cantwell. >> thank you, madame chair, for holding this hearing. and welcome back, mr. secretary. the department of energy is a global leader in science and technology with an unrivalled network national laboratories. it is also key to our national security when it comes both to nuclear and cyber threats. the president's budget proposes to slash many of the doe's essential programs and it would devastate emerging clean energy jobs in our economy. it would kill science and innovation in the jobs that d.o.e. supports. the budget would raise electricity rates in the pacific northwest, i guarantee you a number of people on this committee will not be supportive of that by auctioning off federal utility assets. the budget would undermine u.s. leadership in a sector that is posed to grow millions of jobs around the world, and according to the international energy agency more than $30 trillion will be invested in new renewable energy facilities and energy efficiency between now and 2040. so we've heard a lot about the so-called energy dominance from

this administration. i'd like to hear a lot less about exporting commodities than even nations like china are starting to have major blowback on and pledging more on how we are going to focus on winning the opportunity in energy efficiency, advanced technologies and things that consumers and businesses around the world are pledging commitment to. as this committee recently showed the cost of clean energy technologies have dropped between 41% and 94% since 2008. i was very proud to join the chair on a recent northwest trip where we saw energy efficiency helping businesses save dollars and also how grid -- microgrids in alaska are looking for every advantage they can get in driving down the cost of energy. the success stories have been built on decades of strategic investment by the department of energy. and this is something that both democrat and republican

administrations have supported. but president trump's budget is a break in that bipartisan tradition. it's an attempt to turn back the clock on energy policy, i think, at the expense of the future. during your confirmation hearing you committed to protecting science, protecting the men and women who conduct that science and advocating for our national labs. so i have great concerns for a proposed cut that could affect as many as 1,000 people at the northwest laboratory. but specifically this budget poses to eliminate rpe which is the advanced high potential high impact energy technologys that are too early for the private sector to either take on or advance, critically important to our nation. eliminates the weatherization assistance program and state energy program, which provides critical state assistance to 50 states to help them. draconian cuts to the applied energy research program such as the 70% for the office of energy

efficiency and renewable energy and 48% for the office of electricity, delivery in electricity reliability. i guarantee you that's something everybody across the board here cares about. and 17% cut from the office of science, which is the largest federal sponsor of basic science and physical science. this week you questioned the certainty of science behind climate change. and during your confirmation hearing you said i'm going to protect all the science, whether it's related to climate or whatever aspects we are going to be doing, end quote. so, mr. secretary, with all due respect, i want to make sure you and your office has all the information you need on science. your budget proposal slashing the biological and environmental research within the office of science, the office that supports climate research by 43%, and another troubling area is the important priority for d.o.e. on energy infrastructure. our grid and our energy networks are under cyber attack from 2012 to 2016 the number reported

incidents against u.s. critical infrastructure more than doubled. and according to "the washington post" story last week, russian government hackers have already shown their interest in targeting u.s. energy and utility systems. so this threat to our grid is clearly growing, and this morning i along with 18 of my colleagues are sending a second letter to the president reiterating that d.o.e. should address this growing threat on our critical infrastructure. during your confirmation hearing you assured me that the committee -- assured me and the committee that cyber security would be your top, nevertheless your budget slashes by 30%. so i want to see a larger investment in this very, very critical area to our infrastructure. i'd like to mention i know my colleague from washington had a chance to talk to you about hanford funding yesterday. and i'm credibly disappointed to see the administration's approach to the hanford cleanup in light of the recent tunnel

collapse at the plutonium uranium facility followed by worker take cover at the finishing plant and operations budget being cut demonstrates disregard for the health and safety of the individual who is are working in our state. the trump administration needs to understand that if we do not prioritize hanford funding and the potential for safety and security, we are going to have issues and serious problems. these recent incidents are a wakeup call for the administration. and that's why i'm working to ensure that the resources are there for the public. now, i know that i'll have probably a little sheet here somewhere of all the ideas and schemes that people have come up with in the past. we had secretary watson delay the vit plant construction in 1991 to consider the waste and pretreatment plant, for two years clinton administration planned operation of the plant to pay contractors, we saw

secretary abramson try to accelerate by calling waste in the tanks and calling it good. we saw science experts review the vit plan. we had secretary monise explore new ways of treatment. all i'm saying is every energy secretary comes into office pressured, pressured more by some omb person who knows nothing about science trying to do cleanup on the cheap. i guarantee you it can't be done. we have to remain resolute and committed to cleaning this up and based on science. so i look forward to asking more about that. but i know that many of my colleagues throughout the pacific northwest both on this committee and on the appropriations committee will have a lot to say about our priorities for hanford. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you, senator cantwell. secretary perry, it's good to have you before the committee. i will note that allison dune is with the secretary this morning,

she's the acting chief financial officer for d.o.e. i understand that you will not be providing testimony this morning, but thank you for being here with the secretary. and, mr. secretary, with that if you would like to begin your remarks so that we can turn to questions. >> senator, thank you. and it's a privilege to be in front of you and the committee again. senator cantwell, members of the committee, it's my privilege to be here, an honor to discuss president -- excuse me, president trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request. as each of you know it is a great privilege to serve as this 14th secretary of energy. as a former legislator i might add an appropriator as well, and the governor, i am very respectful of the budget writing process and know the importance of the work that you're

undertaking. i look forward to working with you to finalize a budget that we can all be proud of and that serves the taxpayers of this country as well. in my three and a half months as secretary of energy i have seen firsthand the impact of the department's leadership, both domestically and internationally. i've traveled around the country, been into some of your states, and senator cantwell, i intend to get to hanford asap, most likely this summer, to look at that, to talk to the men and women who are working there, visit with those brilliant individuals that are on site that i happen to take a lot of faith in their knowledge of what's needed and how to address these issues that are driving their mission. so i look forward to being in a lot of your states over the course of the next months ahead.

these labs truly are, as you have all noted either today or in previous conversations are national treasures. they're the future of innovation in this country. and i have been in absolute awe of the diverse scope of the department's mission and the consequential work that we are charged with undertaking. i've also traveled overseas representing the united states at the g7 meeting in rome and then in beijing for the clean energy mission innovation ministerials. i had the opportunity to visit japan and meet with leaders and stakeholders about the future of the energy partnership that the u.s. and japan has. and on a very somber note, i toured the site of the fukushima disaster and saw firsthand the absolute monumental task that

they have before them. my trip to asia coincidentally began on the day that president trump announced that we would officially withdraw the united states from the paris agreement. i delivered his message to the world that even though the u.s. would be no longer a part of the paris agreement, we are still the leader in clean energy technology and we are committed to that mission. the department of energy does many things well. america has remained on the forefront of technology for over 40 years because of the amazing men and women at these labs. mr. heinrich, you particularly understand this with the two you have in your state. they wake up every day knowing that they will make a real difference in the world. and i told them the first time i met with them that the greatest job i ever had was being the governor of texas.

but after working here, i've come to realize that secretary of energy is officially the coolest job i've ever had, senator. under my leadership our experts at d.o.e. will continue their work for the benefit of every american and our allies alike. as secretary of energy, i'm also a member of the national security council. this council supported by d.o.e. in its mission to keep our nation safe. president trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request for the department of energy provides $28 billion to advance our key missions and focuses -- excuse me, on important investments including ensuring the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons arsenal, protecting our energy infrastructure from cyber attacks and other threats, achieving exscale computing and focusing the amazing network of our national laboratories on early stage research and development. and my goals are straightforward, advance our nation's critical energy and

scientific r & d missions, strengthen our nuclear security, fulfill our environmental management commitments. i just painted you a rather rosy picture. and while there is a lot of good news to report, there are other hard conversations that we need to have. as you're well aware. there are approximately 120 sites in 39 states that are storing spent nuclear fuel or high level waste. in fact, many members of this committee have waste in their states. we have a moral and a national security obligation to come up with a long-term solution, finding the safest repositories available. this is a sensitive topic for some, but we no longer can continue to kick the can down the road.

as a former legislative appropriator and agency head and governor, i understand how important following the rule of law is. i've been instructed to move forwards towards that goal. the president's budget requests $120 million to resume licensing activities for the yucca mountain nuclear waste rep repository. we need to be stewards of the taxpayers, congress spent $5 billion on the mox project way over budget with no end in sight. the army corps of engineer estimates cost of $17.2 billion and a 2048 completion date. the money appropriated for this project is money that could be used towards other priorities, like national security or cleanup at other sites. there is a better, cheaper and proven way to dispose of

plutonium. in fact, we're using that process now. i look forward to having an ongoing dialogue with many of you about these tough but important issues in the days and months to come. this budget proposal makes some difficult choices, but it is paramount that we execute our fiduciary responsibility to the american taxpayer. the president's proposed priorities dealing with the core mission of the department by consolidating duplication within our agency is in order. and it does in fact respect our taxpayers. he deserves credit for beginning this discussion about how we most wisely spend our scarce federal dollars. as for me, this isn't my first rodeo. having been the governor of texas for 14 years, i managed under some pretty tight budget consequences. it wasn't always blue skies and smooth sailing. we had some substantial budget

shortfalls during that period of time that i was governor. and we were able to budget successfully. and we faced limited resources at times and texas became a shining example of energy growth, economic growth, higher educational standards and important improvements to the environment. i will manage the same way at the department of energy. and we did that in my home state by working together. and that's one of the things that i want to really bring forward today is my intention to working with you. i understand this budgetary process. i understand it's a first step. but i am committed to working with you, each of you, in the ways that you direct. i understand this process. i respect it. set clear goals, manage the best and brightest to achieve those goals and spending scarce

resources wisely. with your help i believe we can attain many positive outcomes that you expect, that you want to see that the department of energy is capable of delivering on behalf of the american people. so thank you again, madame chairman, and i look forward to attempting to answer your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. appreciate your enthusiasm for your new role. i'm sure that that will help you get through every day and some days are easier than others. we all know that around here. let me start my questioning by rpe. i am a big fan of rpe. i recognize when we think about the department of energy and the cool things that you get to do, one of the cool things is to really help facilitate some of these great, fabulous ideas that changed the country, change the

world. but as we all know, cool ideas that start in somebody's garage don't always end up making it through. we talk a lot around this committee about the so-called valley of death with energy innovations, and good things happen but they just can't make it to that point of commercialization. when i think of the role of rpe and how it has really helped to be that bridge, its investments have reportedly spurred nearly $2 billion in follow-on private sector funding and spin-off companies to advance technology in market. this is exactly the type of thing that we should be doing. so the question to you this morning to start things off are do you support the mission of

rpe? and that space you should be occupying which is to help really revolutionize and change the world here. >> senator, you asked the perfect question, and i think from my perspective the result of being able to deliver the next big thing, if you will, and when you think about the department of energy and other type of agencies not directly hydraulic fracturing greatly assisted by the department of energy, as you shared extraordinary stories about the technology and innovation that's come out of the department of energy, arpa-e was created about a decade ago and it was funded the first time in '09. so my point with this and, listen, again, as i said, i

understand this budgetary process, and i'm going to follow your lead when it comes to i know how the money is appropriated, i know how the instructions come, and so if the result is we want the department of energy to be really focused on pushing these new ideas out, getting them to commercialization, i am incredibly in support of that. >> do you think that's a role of the department? >> i do. >> okay. >> i think there is a real role to play on getting basic research funded, gap funding to get that to the point where you can kmcommercialize it. we're going to argue about, senator franken, whether is it this much or this much, or what have you, but i don't think we're going to have an argument about i truly believe -- and you look at my history. i mean, as a governor of texas, we helped create emerging technology fund in that state

that commercialized technologies that would have died in that valley of death as you referred to if the gap funding had not been there. i understand that. i support that. now, senator, we're going to have a discussion here and debate about what's the proper structure. is it in -- is it the arpa-e structure? if that's what the congress side's perry this is the structure we're going to have, you go make it work, and i will salute and go get that done. >> do you think the structure has not worked in recent years? >> i will tell you that i think it's worth having a conversation about, looking at each of these programs, having a good open discussion about is this the proper structure, is this the right way to deliver the result. and i've got a pretty good background of 14 years of

managing a pretty big entity. and what i would ask you, senator, and each of you in both personal and professional way is i hope you will trust me, if you will, to manage this agency to deliver the results that you want. is it absolutely in this structure that we have today? i can't tell you yes or no. what i'm going to tell you is i'm going to work with you very closely. senator franken asked me this off stage and i've answered it yesterday as well, when somebody said, you know, defend this budget and i said, you know, the budget was written before i got here. it was written before the second day of march the best i can tell, but my job is to robustly defend that budget. and i'm going to. with that said, i highly respect this process. and this is the first step of

this budgetary process. as a governor, i put a lot of budgets forward. senator cantwell, i never got one back the way i sent it. but with that said, we're in a process, i respect that, i want you to know that on the arpa side of things i will work diligently to deliver for you the results that you expect, you demand and that the american people will salute and say well done. >> well, i think you will find at least among this committee that there is -- there's good support for what comes out of arpa-e, so i'm hearing that you're willing to work with us on that. and i think that that is important. but, again, you got good supporters here. senator cantwell. >> thank you, madame chair. mr. secretary, i would like to follow up. i know representative newhouse had a chance to talk with you about the northwest labs and

when he mentioned the potential of 1,000 layoffs you tried to assure him you would try to manage that keeps innovation and technology that this country's going to need, end quote. so are you suggesting that those 100 employees would not lose their jobs? or would those employees -- i'm trying to understand where you think this is going because they're so involved in innovation. i would say d.o.e. experts from pnl have been key partners in the fukushima cleanup and the hanford cleanup and so many other things, so i just want to understand where you think this is going. >> senator, there is a -- there are a lot of numbers that have been thrown out there's going to be this many people lose their jobs at the labs, there's going to be this many people lose their jobs at the labs, i'm not going to sit here and tell you guarantee there's not going to

be one person lose their job at a lab. i'm not going to do that. because that's not realistic. what is realistic is to tell you that my priorities are going to be to make sure that we get the job done at these labs. it obviously requires a lot of really capable, smart, brilliant individuals. we have the flexibility with our budget, i hope you will consider giving me even more flexibility than maybe previous secretaries have to be able to manage those dollars the best way that we can to keep those labs both functioning at the high level that they are and to keep as many of those individuals employed that you're going to need. so i understand how to manage during some times that you have budgetary challenges. there may be some -- there may be some hard decisions that get

made about whether or not this number of employees is the right amount or not with the goal being using our unexpended balances, using our flexibility for that not to be a challenge for our labs. >> look, i will give you this, you are not the first energy secretary to come before this committee with ideas of changing things, but most of the time i think our committee and the appropriators have probably set those administrations straight because we have been the stewards of these concepts and prioritizations and continually focus on them, as regional issues or as national issues. but i'm just curious, what area do you think we don't need innovation in? i mean, in the context of these lab workers, they're working on cyber security, nuclear nonproliferation, hanford clean up, grid reliability, building

efficiencies are any of those areas you think we don't need to continue to innovate in? >> no. >> okay. so none of those would be on the chopping block? >> senator, everything is going to get analyzed. and, again, i'm not going to tell you publicly or privately that there is not an employee that's going to get -- lose their job in the process. i'm going to manage it. and i'm going to manage it in a very well way. but, you know, nothing that you said is not an important part of what the department of energy does. can we do it better? i think we can. can we do it more efficiently? i think we can. i'm not just talking from a, you know, political standpoint. i've done that before. >> i wanted to ask you about worker safety at hanford. this is a critical -- i know we only have a few minutes here, but all of these issues are critically important to our state and very much in the forefront of what's concerning.

what specific steps are you taking on worker safety? and will you look at this air tank issue for us? the workers at various sites have come up with what they think are more workable solutions that are being implemented at d.o.e. on other locations to help the workers continue to do the cleanup they need but to be safe and secure on their air systems? >> senator, one of the things that i want to in a global way just kind of share with you one of the first videos i sent out agency wise was about worker safety, about our commitment to it, about if they see -- if workers see an issue, that they should never fear that they cannot report that back to the secretary of energy, all the way up if that's what's required. and i think that was an important message that we sent out there, our commitment to the

safety of these workers. we're going to continue to find ways to implement programs whether it's -- your site may be the biggest challenge that this country's got, hanford. >> hanford is the largest nuclear waste cleanup site in the entire world. >> yes, ma'am. >> that is why you cannot do it on the cheap. so, anyway -- >> there's a difference between doing it on the cheap and doing it as efficient as you can. and i want to have that conversation with you and the committee often. >> can't wait to welcome you to hanford as soon as possible. thank you. >> thank you, senator flake. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary. good to see you again. >> thank you, sir. >> during the confirmation process we discussed some of the issues that customers in arizona have had with wapa, the wear area power association. the effective delivery of federal hydropower around arizona and the rest of the west

as you know is very important to rural and urban customers alike. and as the chairman of the water and power subcommittee, i see our oversight role as improving the efficiency and transparency at wapa. rate payers and taxpayers deserve to know how their money is spent, to know it's spent wisely and for the intended purpose. i know that wapa is staffed with a lot of good people, but unfortunately a string of past fraudulent spending has cast a shadow over the agency's finances. fraudulent spending of rate payer money has been recently reported by arizona television stations and by newspapers. this march d.o.e. inspector general reported a list of actions taken by wapa to address concerns over fraudulent or improper spending in the government's purchase card program. however, the d.o.e. reports did not, quote, determine the

effectiveness of corrective actions in addressing the identified weaknesses, end quote. then just last week it came to my attention that on several instances in sworn testimony this spring senior wapa official has said that problems with the government's purchase card program have not been adequately fixed. now, it's troubling to see that there is disagreement at the highest levels of wapa over whether sufficient safeguards are in place to stop this from happening again. my question for you is, obviously it's unacceptable what we've seen the investigations, news stories, hearings, audits. after all that there could still be waste, fraud and abuse at wapa. do you agree that that's an untenable situation? >> yes. and if i may just be sound on that. you know, we at this particular

point in time after the i.g.'s investigation are unaware of any current fraud or waste or abuse for that matter at wapa. it is unacceptable. we hopefully will send that message loud and clear that the i.g. inspection did that as well, number one, that we're watching and we're paying attention. if from your perspective and the individual you make reference to, if you think that there is a continued investigative effort that needs to come from d.o.e., can we have that conversation? and go forward from there. because it's just unacceptable, sir. and any time those kind of activities occur, people lose

faith in government. and, you know, i came to this job to be of assistance, to help. and i hope i can be. >> well, thank you. what i think would be helpful is to follow up with the i.g. at d.o.e. to ensure that procedures are put in place to ensure that this can't happen again. >> yes, sir. >> and apparently some believe that they are not and the i.g. their report saying that it did not determine the effectiveness of corrective actions in addressing the identified weaknesses. so obviously they need to do that. and also, if you could request of the i.g. to ensure that money from the fraudulent and improper purchases has been recovered. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. with regard just in the minute i have left, research done at d.o.e. obviously the budget makes some tough choices. in time of tight budgets we've got to prioritize this kind of

spending. i'm exploring a bipartisan effort to help d.o.e. identify some specific clean energy goals in the area of advanced nuclear reactor technology and grid scale storage with intermittent power coming on increasingly particularly in the west, then we've got to have clean base load power. this puts pressure on nuclear power that wasn't there before. we've got to make sure that research done at d.o.e. can help us into the next generation of nuclear and also grid scale storage to take advantage of intermittent sourcing. >> yes, sir. and i'll just quickly, i happen to think and senator murkowski and i have had this discussion from our first meeting, small reactors and the work that has been done and the work that will be done, i happen to think is one of the areas that we need to spend some substantial time and

resources on and our national labs, inl in particular is working on that. we've got the private sector that we help fund new scale that's out now moving towards commercialization. so i think we're making some good progress. not fast enough to suit me and not broad enough to suit me. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator heinrich. >> thank you, madame chair. it's great to see you, secretary. i want to start by thanking you for your trip to new mexico. i think it meant a lot to the folks at whip. i think one thing you've heard the importance of safety and i want to thank you for your commitment to that whether it's los alamos, whip, hanford, all these places, worker safety has

to be number one. as you know los alamos, which i believe you visited in may, has long been the nation's center of excellence on plutonium research. is it correct that this budget fy-18 the request maintains los alamos' central role in the nation's plutonium mission and that it's your intent to stay on schedule and meet the statutory requirements for production? >> yes. >> that's good to hear. is it also your intention that los alamos continue into the future to fill that important mission for the nation as was approved by the nuclear weapons council? >> yes, sir. >> just ask you one more thing on this front, can you assure me that you will make the final decision on additional plutonium facilities based solely on strictly objective criteria, things like cost, schedule, compliance with your mission requirements? >> yes. >> great.

i want to ask you something that isn't strictly a budget related item, but it's certainly timely and is incredibly important from an economic perspective. as you well know wind generation in west texas has really taken off over the last few years. now it accounts for about 23% of power generation for the electric reliability council of texas, ercot as you probably know it. further ercot believes close to 100% of the new electricity generation that's going to be added to texas over the next ten years is likely to be wind or solar. do you agree with ercot's technical assessment that they can accommodate such high penetration levels of renewable energy? >> i'm going to be cautious about answering that with definitety. we're in the process of doing a grid study now. >> that's why i bring it up.

>> that i think will give a better certainly more in-depth answer than i could just off the top of my head today. so if i could punt this to the first weekend in july, we should be getting that finalized. obviously you and the members will have access to that as we talk about it. you know my history with wind and you know my history with having a very broad portfolio. and i bring that to the department of energy. nothing's changed from that perspective. >> i raise largely because ercot is already managing dramatically higher levels of renewables than most states in the nation. so i think looking at what they've been able to do is instructive for whether or not we actually have a problem. >> yes, sir. and what i would remind folks is that texas has a rather substantial baseload energy

production as well. and that's probably where we're going to be getting down into the weeds on this, senator, is what is the percentage of base load whether it comes from fossil fuels, either from coal or natural gas or from nuclear that maintain that base load. and obviously having solar and wind as part of your overall mix -- i think, let me put it that way -- >> i don't actually remember base load being a term when i was studying engineering because we've always had a situation where for maintenance purposes you take entire facilities offline. so just like solar doesn't work at night, also coal fired and natural gas fired facilities get taken offline in their entirety in many cases. so i think we ought to be looking at reliability and on being able to manage the grid

effectively for that reliability as opposed to saying, well, this is good and that's bad or vice versa. >> absolutely. i think you're correct in that particularly in the sense of making sure that you have enough energy sources that are going to be reliable and stable and economical. that's what the public wants. i mean, you and the engineers and myself we'll all have a great discussion about some intricacies here, but the american people want to know that when they flip that switch on, when it's 117 degrees in las vegas as it was two days ago that that air-conditioning is working. >> might be something to this global warming thing after all. thank you, secretary. >> thank you, senator heinrich. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you for being here today. want to talk about some things in the budget request. the budget request includes some developments in the fossil fuel energy redevelopment program, that's the program includes

carbon capture and storage research which the department proposes to cut by more than 80%. and i have concern that these proposed cuts conflict with what the president has said in terms of his goals to bring back coal jobs and increase coal production. in 2005 coal accounted for about half the u.s. power generation, this past year declined to about 30%. so i think we have to reverse this decline in order to maintain a reliable and resilient electric grid. it's critical that we need to have all of the energy sources. now, there are emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage that have the potential to reverse coal's decline while also reducing emissions. i think successfully achieving the commercialization of these technologies is both going to protect the environment and ensure that coal plants remain in service and competitive in energy markets. so could i just ask you to

visit -- >> excuse me, sir. as i said earlier maybe before you stepped in i'm going to do my best to vigorously defend this budget. it was right before i got here, but with that said i understand this budgeting process and prioritizing parts of it that may on the face of this budget look like there's been massive cuts over here, i hope we'll have the back and forth and management of this budget where we prioritize, ccs is one of those. at our trip to china at the clean energy ministerial, we were able to get them in an international way to agree to put that carbon capture utilization and sequestration

issue at the forefront of the clean ministerial to do some investigative work to have that conversation internationally. i think that's good not only for the environment, i think it's good for american technology. as you know, one of my first acts at secretary of energy was to go to the plant right outside houston, the world's largest sequestration -- that coal capture and it is a fascinating -- we had this conversation with the vice premier in china, they are interested in this technology. i mean, i think we're doing, doing what this congress wants us to do as a country that is to promote these technologys that

are coming out of in this case d.o.e. and a lot of cases and the private sector working together. so i'm committed to promoting that technology, committed to this all of the above approach which the carbon capture side of coal utilization is very important. we're going to use it. and we're going to use it wisely. and we're going to use it in a way that affects our environment in a positive way and in a way that affects our economy in a positive way. >> one other thing the department's budget proposals includes significant cut to the office of electric delivery and energy reliability. and that's the program that's responsibility for research and development to improve grid reliability and security in terms of attacks. i know you talked about in your prepared remarks among the most critical mission is to develop science and technology that will assure americans of a resilient electric grid and energy infrastructure. we all agree.

so according to the north american electric reliability corporation's report last year they say the threats continue to increase. we're hearing all over the country, not just the electric grid but all components. i'm just concerned less research and development for this innovative work could place our nation's grid at risk to these threats. so i just, if you could spend a little bit of time talking about how we can make sure that this security is there for the grid for the future. >> yes, sir. i'm deeply aware of the president's executive order, the department of homeland security, the department of energy taking the lead on cyber security. even before that was done we had stood up three of our national labs in what is referred to as the cyber core to be working on it. it is a prioritization, when i had all the lab directors in

that is one of the things they heard, that we are going to spend the resources, we're going to spend the focus and we're going to have the result of being able to deliver to the private sector and to the government. the challenges and the fixes, if you will, and we're working on that diligently, and we will -- i'm committing to you, senator, that that is a top tier priority at the department of energy. and i suggest to you, again, that those labs have the capability, inl has its own grid out there where they can go and break things and infest it, if you will, and duplicate what we're seeing. so i'm -- you know, i'm concerned about it as an american citizen. i am confident that the department of energy has the intellect, the capability, and i will suggest to you the funding

to do what both the president and you as members of congress expect us to deliver. >> thank you, senator franken. >> thank you, madame chair. welcome back to the committee, secretary perry. i don't envy your position. you seem to be a defense counsel for someone charged with murder and you seem to be saying i know he's guilty but i'm going to give him a robust defense. so -- you're doing a great job. >> interesting observation, sir. >> two days ago the american energy innovation council, a group of ten current and retired corporate leaders including norman augustine, former ceo of lockheed martin, and bill gates,

released a report about the importance of federal investment in energy research and development. the group recommends vastly increased funding for arpa-e from $300 million to $1 billion per year and increasing federal investment for advanced energy innovation to $16 billion per year, two and a half times the total amount for energy research proposed in your budget. secretary perry, the president's budget is frankly anti-innovation. it does the exact opposite of what the american energy innovation council recommends. it absolutely guts private investment and research including slashing energy research programs by $3.1 billion and cutting renewable energy and energy efficiency research by nearly 70%. and, again, on arpa-e, it's the

president's budget completely eliminates them. you said at a hearing yesterday that the budget was written before you were confirmed. you said confirmed and you saidt today, but you do support this administration's budget cuts? >> senator, i am going to do everything i can to deliver to the american people within the bounds of the budget that you write. and again, i understand and support, respect this process. is arpa e the result of a good thing? yes. is arpa e the holy grail on how government needs to be structured? maybe not. >> let's talk about some of these things. during your confirmation hearing you talked about how the federal

government -- central to hydraulic fracturing. >> i would suggest to you there are, as is nuclear as is clean coal. >> so that would be a yes. >> and launch, at least, 56 new companies. that, you know, that's 1.8 billion is much more than rpe has expended. this idea that there isn't a role, and i'm not going to make you defend it, i just want to say this, the whole idea that the valley, the government's job isn't to take things through the

valley of death is wrong. and that is the government's job in certain technologies. and we need to do that. we tried in the '80s, the government cut energy funding by 52%, do you know what happened to private research investment then? >> no. >> well, they fell by 40%. private industry doesn't fill in in these kinds of emerging technologies when the government doesn't do it. what the government does, is incentivizes private industry to jump in. so industry -- well, actually,

industry cut energy research by 79% when overall rnd expenditures were cut. let me turn to chielimate chang. oh, i am out of time. i did wait a while because of the health care thing today. okay. >> can i start? >> i guess you can. go ahead. >> i think we will go to senator manchin. but we will have a second round. >> thank you so much. first of all, good to see you back here again. you were here last in january 19 through your hearing. we had a talk, and when i asked would you come to west virginia, and you are coming to see nettle

and you are a person of your word and i thank you. >> yes, sir. >> when we were governors together in 2005, we were sitting in a meeting if you were, katrina was getting ready to hit. and i asked you, would this hurricane have effect on you, but you said it was going to hit you. and it might have hit you, but the results didn't. >> i know this is off subject, but this is a democratic governor and a republican governor of texas, and i got a call from the governor of louisiana and she said can you

handle 25,000 people and i said send them and about 125,000 later, i am on the phone saying, hey, joe, can you send some aircraft to help us move people because we had another hurricane that came in and moved all those people -- anyway, and had it not been for joe and the people of west virginia and national guard, we would have had people in a real sling. and i will never forget that. >> that's the way it should work. it should work in congress and government. but we sent c 130s and 1,200 troops. so thank you for coming again. we will entertain you in a

bipartisan way, and with that we say thank you. let me go to the thing i am concerned about. i understand the study of our grids reliability -- would draw criticism. and what it takes to energize this grid system. i think we are on the same page of we should be collaborating with the federal government. in west virginia, our existing installed capacity is over 90% in coal. we have critical plants and we are looking for that new technology. i believe that the department of energy is taking a good look at this issue of how coal should play a part in national defense and i thank you for that. it is not about one fuel type

over another, it is about how we energize and secure the grid. can you comment on why you believe the study is so important and basically showing the reliability that the country depends on. you said when 115 degrees and they flip a switch, they want something to work. >> yes, sir. senator, it is very much, i am so glad we got tasked with this grid reliability because i think it is important for us to have this conversation. i think all of us would love to see blue skies and clean air everywhere in the world. >> we are talking about base load. base load runs 24/7 uninterrupted. nuclear gives you that. and gas is coming on strong. >> and i will mention this in

passing. yesterday, there were places where they had either brown outs or black outs in some of the western states. i saw this on the news. i am not reporting this as guaranteed fact. we know when there is that kind of stress on our grid system, that we need to be prepared for that. and so you know, it's so important that we economically and from a national security standpoint have these multiple sources of energy that will be there when we need it, when it's called on. you know, having 60 days of coal on the ground, i happen to think is important. having nuclear plants that are functioning and being able to move the waste off site of those so that industry knows that there is going to be a future

for them is important. i think the natural gas that we have been able to retrieve is incredibly important to that. our wind energy, our solar energy and hydro, all of that collectively are part of a portfolio that we have got to protect and making sure that our grid is when it's stressed to its highest levels will still be able to keep that air-conditioning running in a place where temperatures are reaching 120 degrees out doors, i don't want to take that call that a family has been put into distress or even died because we didn't do our work to make sure there is a base load of energy to make sure we have the need. >> i think it is going to be

imperative for the american people. so i want to thank you very much. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. senator daines. >> as you know montana is an incredible state known for fly fishing and elk hunting. glacier national park, and we are also an energy state. we have more recovery coal than any state. in montana we strike a good balance. -- reliable energy sources tax revenues for our schools and teachers. at the same time, we work to protect our environment. may we always be a state where

mom or dad can go to walmart and they can buy their elk tag. one of the ways to do that is to keep developing our national resources responsibilities. coal, oil, gas, an important component of our economy. yet we also balance out the hydro electric power and some winds. and i really do believe we could bring this montana balance on a national scale. clean, coal technology will play a role in that going forward. i really do believe as we think about the longer term here, we need to lead in this important technology development. i want to talk for a moment about energy exports, mr. secretary. i was struck by data i saw, in

fact at an energy summit i put on in billings, montana last year. wi we took a look at long-term. between what is going to happen now and 2050. they tell us that the global population will increase by 1.6 billion people between now and 2050. they also told us that energy demand is going to increase about 85% between now and 2050. and with the growth in global energy demands, with the u.s. now playing a larger role in supplying europe and east asia with coal and liquid natural gas, how do you see the department's budget supporting

energy exports? i heard you say it, you said it is not about energy independence, it is about energy dominance. i agree. i think it is so strategic from an economic viewpoint going forward and also from a national viewpoint going forward. >> thank you senator daines, and i was struck by two things, the natural beauty of your state. it is extraordinary. i understand why folks from my part of the world want to spend their summers up there. >> and spend their money which is fine. >> yes, sir. and the other thing that i didn't understand is montana is 49th in the nation for wages. and one of the reasons is

because of the attack that we have seen historically on that energy and coal. these are government regulations and federal regulations have impacted your state in a negative way and president trump has given us instructions whether it is myself or all of us, i should say secretary zinke for instance who knows your state very well. take care of our beautiful resources that we have but also keep in mind the men and women whether they are tribal members or whether they are the citizen of coal trip, that we understand that rules and regulations that we are going to be making. being able to sell that coal. i had the president of ukraine in our office monday. -- delivered to ukraine so they don't have to rely upon the

pressures of russia at this particular time. prime minister modi is in town soon to talk to the president and that company is going to be the most populous country in the world in the future. we can be a part of that, american lng, american coal, american technology. it is that ccus that i was talking to the vice premier of china about. america, i don't think has had an opportunity in our history in being able to play a powerful role in securing our national defense making sure economically we are a massive player in the global marketplace and having an impact on the environment

because the way texas drove down its emissions back in the 2000s was partly with transferring away from the old power plants to natural gas. we have an extraordinary opportunity, and i hope the deo and i know, i feel confident that we will, working with you find those strategies with which we can put in place to promote american energy, american technology and strengthen our security and economy. >> thank you. i am out of time, but i want to thank you for your support in that area and vision. and when vice president pence came out to montana a few weeks ago, the very first place that he went as vice president, we

jumped into the indian reservation and we rode horseback to tour the mine and those jobs for indian country are critical. >> unacceptable. >> senator cortez masto. thank you. when you were nominated for secretary of energy, we had a frank and serious conversation about my grave concerns. since that time you visited the site. since that trip you went from touting the importance of state sovereignty to a supported support in -- against the will of my state under mining state's right. what has prompted such a change

in your viewpoint? >> senator, with all due respect disagree with your analysis of my position. nothing has really changed. i think it is wise for us to have a very open conversation with this country about the moral obligation that we have as a people. there is statutory requirements for us to move this waste. there are multiple options about where that waste could go. as i clarified yesterday there is no plan in place to put that in a particular place at this particular point in time, but i think we need to be looking at all of our options and having an open and productive conversation about how -- i don't think it's

wise for us to continue to leave high level waste, spent rods in pools not unlike what they had at fukushima, over in california, that is in the ring of fire. you could have an event that is not unli-fukushima. >> specifically when it comes to yucca mountain, because your predecessor, they were steadfast in the position that yucca mountain was unworkable. a phase, adaptive consent siting process is needed -- let me say

this. you previously stated that you want to have a good working relationship with as many governors as you can. and i can tell you that governor sandal is -- and in fact, let me just say this. western governors association which includes your predecessor in texas recently passed that a -- without the written consent of that governor or territory. that is all that nevada is asking for. consent base sighting. why is that such a difficult concept and something that you think should not occur.

and interim storage which is a whole new conversation that we hadn't heard before at the nevada national security site. i'm confused. >> let me help with the last issue that you brought up. i was making reference to an article that was by a nevada state senator that he pitched that out as an idea. i think about a may 142017 article that i picked up. >> i appreciate that. and i will tell you that that is something that i am not going to support -- but let me say this. what we are looking for is, at least, some sort of commitment that you are looking for, at least, the science to prove that it is safe. even your deputy secretary recently commented when he was in here in his nomination hearing that if the science is not there, that we would not

support it. if you can't get behind consent base citing, then, at least, look at the science and commit that if the science is not there and not workable, we should not store nuclear waste at yucca mountain. can you commit to that. >> sure. i think. and i think it is important for us to do two things. pay attention to the science and also to the rule of law. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> thank you, and secretary perry, just so you do know, i have been asked to submit as part of the committee record here today, a letter that snore cantwell and i have received from the -- heller also from nevada with a request specific to the department about repository costs in previous

studies and a request for new cost studies on geologic disposal and repositories. so this will be included as part of the record. i believe you have already received it or in the process. but i have complied with that request. senator king. >> thank you. mr. secretary, i don't envy you today. this budget is perhaps the worst budget for any energy that i have seen in public life in terms of corresponding to national priorities. it is amazing. you made a statement in your opening statement when you first appeared before this committee in your confirmation hearing and said when it comes to climate change, i am committed to making decisions from sound science. this is a nonscience budget.

you said today the u.s. is the leader in clean energy technology and we are committed to this mission. the budget doesn't say that. arpa e, 93% eliminated. you are even cutting the energy information agency 3.5%. energy efficiency, 69.6% cut. office of science, 17%. by the way, 56,000 people that work for the national labs. a 17% cut in a 56,000 agency is about -- to come here and tell us that you are about sound science when you are cutting the very departments, the portions

of your essential agency that is going to give us the science doesn't pass the straight face test. i think you have been sent on a suicide mission here and i want you to go back and tell the people who are pushing you to do it there, i can't do it. if you can find a question in there -- >> i was looking for it sir. >> you can't cut something by 69% and say you are going to find efficiencies. >> governor, here is what i would tell you, is if we are going to continue to do everything like we've always done it, then we are going to probably continue to get the same result. i hope what i can tell you is that i understand this budget can process. i respect it. and i bring a rather substantial

management history of running big things and doing them in a fairly substantial way. sometimes we had the money that most agency heads thought that we needed and sometimes we didn't. but i hope that we can agree that this is a good starting point. >> no. it is not a good starting point. it is a terrible starting point. let's -- i meet you in the middle and it is still not adequate. >> we will work together to try it to be adequate. that is the only answer i can give you. >> let me give you another one that is awful. 47.8% cut. are you aware that our grid is incredibly vulnerable right now to cyber attack. >> probably more than most

people. >> then how are you going to say you are going to cut the department that works on this grid by almost 50%. >> if we get flexibility in our budgeting, i feel confident that we will be able to protect the grid. because that is not the only place we are doing grid work. substantial places in our national labs. whether it is inl or other places that we are doing things to protect the grid. >> that is a national security concern. if there are other places and you can move money around, but cutting money for the reliability of the grid right now is a national security threat. i serve on other committees around here that deal with this issue. i guess as you have pointed out, there is a process and you understand congress, the president proposes congress

and -- here is a question. will you administer them as intended by congress and will you staff adequately to meet those needs? will you administer and implement the budget that congress passes? >> to the best of my ability, i am going to follow the rule of law, sir. >> thank you. thank you madam chair. >> thank you, senator king. we'll have an opportunity for another round of questions. i wanted to ask you secretary perry about the office of indian energy this provides assistance with energy development, capacity building cost reductions for tribes and alaska natives.

this is a tough area to cut in my view. we have a situation in alaska, we have half the tribes in the country and a lot of opportunities in the energy space when it comes to our native people. we have doubled the staffing in the office of indian energy in alaska. we now have two doe folks, two permanent folks in the states. he promised that we might be able to see as many as three. we are up to two. but the reality is that we have

had lack of attitude and consistent d.o.e. staffing within our state. and i am no the going to suggest to you you need to be on a hiring spree here, but i do want to make sure, again, that our needs are met. so office of indian energy in my view is one of those areas where you have high need and important priority. we need to make sure that not only resources are there, but those to help effect shu waet the initiatives are in place. so the question to you at this time is whether you think that there is some opportunities within office of indian energy

to do more with sharing of the -- not sharing of the funds but distributing these funds through different grant programs. what are with e going to do to sure that the role of the office of indian energy is not diminished. and i ask you to speak to the issue of the staffing that we have tried to make a priority in this state. and where you see that might go. and i am glad that senator franken has rejoined the committee now because this is something that he and i have talked about often. within the office of indian energy there is good opportunity. so you have three of us that are interested in this budget category. >> senator, if i might, i will try to be as brief as i can on this. as a matter of fact this is just a new, it was released today --

>> i like that you are using new technology instead of paper. >> yes, ma'am, the office of indian and energy -- projects to receive funding of 7.8 million. and i am not going to delve into it any more, but we are making some progress on that. and we will work very closely with you, and senator hoeven and franken both as you both have tribal interest in your state and in this program. >> well, i appreciate that. and it's always nice to hear news of grants, but i would like you to know that we have some sustainability here. and that comes with staffing. as you know, we've got a really big state and we don't need to

go into the alaska texas comparison. and we have one guy. >> i was given the t-shirt, texas inside alaska with the adage size matters. >> i am glad that we have connected here. so this is good. . i am going to defer to senator franken and senator hoeven. >> senator hoeven is chairman of indian affairs. and he has signed on along with others, the loan guarantee program for indian energy. and i am glad to hear there is $7.8 million. and there is more money in the loan guarantee program. also for indian projects and i think that is a good thing. i wanted to ask you about climate change.

secretary perry, at your confirmation hearing you acknowledged that the climate is changing. but on monday, you were asked on cnbc, do you believe co 2 is the primary control knob for the earth and climate and you answered no. so if the climate is changing and you disagree that co2 is the primary driver, what do you think is driving the change. >> yes, sir. that may not have gotten as much coverage as me saying i do not think co2 is the primary knob that changes it, and i don't. i think there are other naturally occurring events. the warming and the cooling of our ocean waters and some, you know, other activities that occur. i also said in the next breath

that man's impact does in fact have an impact on the climate. and the question is what is going to be the economic impact for this country. and i referred yesterday to hearing in front of the appropriations, senate of appropriations that even an individual as celebrated from a standpoint of his capabilities under the secretary of energy under the previous administration, steven kuhns, he said the science hasn't settled yet. don't you think it is okay to have this conversation of the science of climate change. and why don't we have a red team

approach and sit down, you know, get the politicians out of the room and let the scientists and listen to what they have to say about it. i am pretty comfortable. what is wrong with being a skeptic about something that we are talking about that is going to have this massive impact on american economy. >> you said we needed a blue team, red team to establish climate change. and it is my understanding that the blue team makes an argument and the red team tries to knock it down and they go back and forth until consensus is reached. but that is exactly how science works including climate science. researchers collect data and make arguments, peer reviewers

poke holes and the argument. and it goes back and forth until consensus is reached. every study goes into that red team blue team treatment. and those reports themselves go into rigorous red team blue team and the coke brothers hired a red team of skeptics in 2012 in an effort to cast doubt on mainstream science it was called the best project and much to the s chagrin of their funders. to quote dr. richard muller, call me a converted skeptic. last year following intensive research effort involving a

dozen scientists i conclude that global warming was real and the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. i am now going to step further, humans are entirely the cause. now if you say this is caused by the warming of the oceans, the reason the oceans are warming is because they absorb, water absorbs the heat. and that is why sea level is rising. when the water heats, it expands and also because of the melting of the icecaps there. is no peer reviewed study that doesn't say this is happening and the biggest proponent of this is our military and in their quad drenal review say this is the biggest threat to our world.

the time for red team, i'm sorry, that is what scientists do every day and 100% of peer reviewed scientists have a consensus and that is that this is happening. >> you said something that caught my attention in this remarks that the person who had become a skeptic converted skeptic and you said that he made the statement that global warming was 100% due to human activity. i don't believe that. 100%? every bit of that global warming? don't buy it. >> well -- >> thank you, senator franken. >> i would like to respond to that. that was someone hired by the coke brothers. >> to stand up and say that 100% of global warming is because of human activity, i think on its

face is just indefensible. >> we are not going to resolve this today. let's go to senator hoeven. >> hence, we should have a red team blue team. >> all right. >> one of the things that we talked about our energy and water appropriations hearing is how we could do carbon capture sequestration. and what we did talk about and you were on board with was the process and helping them do them. >> and proven. >> so there was one question that i did want to follow up with you on.

our energy environmental research center, they have contracts ask cooperative agreements with the department of energy with your office of fossil energy. so energy and environmental research center at the university of north dakota has cooperative agreements with your office at d.o.e. and they are doing actually the development of carbon, both the capture and the storage and it is a big regional project. covers huge area out there where they are putting co2 down hole. and we are not only doing that for the fossil industry, we have

ethanol plants out there. and one of them, because we put the legal and regulatory structure in place to actually store co 2 from classics as well. we basically developed from the iogcc. i think you were chairman of it and i was chairman several times. we developed the model legislation which we passed in north dakota. epa just gave us primacy on the ability to regulate it. so not only are we working with the fossil industry. we also have an ethanol plant that is capturing the co 2 out of their process and that will be just for sequestration. so we are doing it on the renewable side too. so these are the cooperative

agreements we have with d.o.e. would you ask your office of fossil energy to expedite the grant funding. our guys, they are being held up on their project right now and it had shared. we are waiting for your piece of it. >> and senator, is it your understanding of this that the delay has been because of a review process that was going on at d.o.e.? >> i don't know the answer to that. but these are agreements that are in play. the agreement is there, it is just that they are waiting on that funding for these ongoing projects. i'm not sure why. >> i'll find out. we will be back in contact. >> appreciate it. and when i see senator franken,

i will tell him we are working hard on this. thanks again. >> secretary perry, you have been very good. i hadn't thought that we would keep you. i apologize for the late start. as it gets warming here in washington, d.c., you need to know this alaska girl longs for the arctic. and i keep thinking about arctic, arctic, all the the time. what are we doing here in congress and in the legislation. and i take that leadership role. we discussed at the confirmation hearing and prior to that this is a focus of mine. and i don't see much in the budget here that will help us build out that energy or that

arctic energy vision. so i would like to know if there is something special in here that you want to point my attention to, i am happy to look at it. it is something that i would like to sit down with you and your team. i know your team is skinny right now. we are going to help you with that. but really want to try to make shoo you a sure that there is an understanding that in the department of energy we think you can play a key role in so many of these initiatives as we work on our arctic global leadership. so i look forward to that with you. >> the one thing that i would reiterate with you, i think we mentioned it here, i spoke to you in the committee, the room behind the committee prior to coming in is my great belief and faith and hope that small modular reactors, the work that

is being done in the private sector, the work that we will be doing to advance that, the next generation, if you will, i think is one of the ways that we can address the arctic, the real challenges that you have of not having a wide spread grid. this vast area of land where the population is thin in places and in being able to deliver a source of energy to them that is practical, that is economical and that is stable. would be a goal that i look forward to working with you. >> well, i so agree, i think there are multiple applications where you might not think that nuclear would be a fit for alaska, everybody thinks of us as this great fossil producing state and we have that in abundance as we do our

renewables. whether it is the wind, the geo thermals. we are pioneering micro grids in alaska that the rest of the world is paying attention to. so we have a lot to offer and again, these are areas that you might not think about it in the context of arctic discussion. there is clearly a role if you are looking for incubators of innovations we can provide that to you. in fact i have a renewable energy fair that i would like to invite you to in mid august. in the interior of alaska and it doesn't get more beautiful than that. and if you want to get a slight preview of some of the innovation that goes on, i have

a grow tower in my front reception room in my office here in the heart building where we are growing lettuce. so here to tell you that people don't think we can grow anything in the cold and dark, and we are proven that a little bit of ingen witty, you can grow it in your reception. >> i look forward to spending time in the great state of alaska. >> thank you for being here and thank you for your time. we stand adjourned.

well in just a couple of moments we will go live to the

american enterprise institute on how law fakers can aaddress the threat of transnational organized crime. senator rubio will be opening remarks. live shortly here. coming up later this afternoon after meeting for the first time president trump and india's prime minister will give statements in the white house rose garden. the trump administration has said that it wants to provide defense technology to india and offered to make a $2 billion sale of unarmed drones. live coverage today 5:15 eastern. >> zachary wood at a senate j e

judiciary hearing. >> new policies that made bringing speakers to our campus an arduous process. is the president's decision to disinvite a speaker solely on the basis of his inflammatory remarks. >> i was sitting next to the denver public librarian and i said what are the issues you are facing here at the denver public library and i thought she would say something like cybersecurity or access to books and she said we have people overdosing in the library today and we need to get the locks on so they can give it to people who have overdosed. >> and senator john mccain at

the confirmation hearing of patrick shannahan. >> and on one of the major issues that this committee has had hearings about, markups about, reported out our bill and you want to find out more information. not a good beginning. not a good beginning. do not do that again, m mr. shannahan or i will not take your vote up befo-- name for a before this committee. >> tonight on the communicators. >> i don't think there is any dispute on either side of this debate that we are in favor of

an open internet. the only way we can ensure that is through legislation. >> senior -- the largest telecom lobby in washington. such as corporate tax reform, privacy and net neutrality. also discuss at&ts merger with time warner. >> we are going through the process we initiated the review of the department of justice last fall. we kicked it off in november. we are going through a process with the department of justice. you know, i think we have told the street that we expect the deal to close by the end of the year and still have foreign approvals that hang out there. not completely done. some of the big poles on the tent in the foreign approval

side. we've got operations in brazil but they are not the only ones. so we are going through a process at the department of justice right now. and you know, our expectation is you know, we should be through that process. we should be through you know, the operational issues that we have to go through in order to be able to close without license transfers and the foreign approval process and pretty confident that we are going to be get through that by the end of the year. >> watch tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> senator john cornyn the republican leader responsible for getting the votes to pass the measure sent out a tweet saying i am closing the door.

we need to do it this week before double digits premium increases are announced for next year. and a response voting this week, now for sure. you know what to do. phone internet in person, the pressure is working but we need more. chad pergram sent out -- get it done by then, whatever the date is, august one, two, or three. you can read the bill at c-span dot org and follow senate coverage online at c-span.org or on the free radio app.

and we are live now for a forum on how lawmakers can address the threats on transnational organization crime. this is hosted by the american enterprise institute. should get underway in just a moment live on c-span 3.